This makes sense. As I said, the forced narrative structure might be his problem with skill challenges. I'm not sure yet.
My preferences for handling combat and skill challenges don't entirely line up with yours.
First of all let me make this clear. Nothing I said in my initial post, or on this one is meant to make it look like you were not doing something right, so please understand that this is all simply advice. From your tone I see that
you did not misunderstand but I want to put it out there so there is no future possibility of misunderstanding.
Your approach is perfectly fine, not everyone should do things "my way" and it is good that you have a good grasp of how the skill challenge framework is working for you. My advice only comes from the experience that has provided the most fun for my group. Every group is different, and you are a better judge than the game designers, or me, as to what works well for you.
I announce the bloodied condition very explicitly, but I also describe what their enemies look like along the way (the closer they are to 0, the more beat up they look).
I do the same, so we're not that far apart on this. I describe what is going on along the way first. Then when the trigger happens I describe that too, and then I declare the metagame condition. Like I said for me it's a matter of presentation. The more I keep characters in the moment, the better the experience IMO.
And, every success or failure in the skill challenge pushes the action forward, so no problems on my end here. I've been running skill challenges in my own RPG (X successes before 3 failures), albeit with different rules, though I'm used to utilizing the basic structure already.
Understood, and you are doing it similarly. Every success, or failure, is pushing the action forward so once again we're not that far apart.
Right; I basically say that certain skills may not be available right now, based on context. So far, my players are very good about doing this themselves, though. If they don't feel like Endurance has a place, they won't try to shoehorn it in, even if they have a big bonus (like the dwarven Fighter does).
The only difference here is that I don't announce what skills are, or are not, usable. I don't explicitly announce that we're in a skill challenge. I find that very jarring. I want that to come out of play not direct metagame exposition. When we're going into an SC, I frame the scene from the character's perspective, not the players. It is similar to what I already do in a combat. When the characters enter a room and see orcs, they might think "combat is about to ensue", but that might depend on their actions. The orcs might raise their weapons and charge immediately, or the orcs might wait and see. I don't roll initiative (the metagame) until the combat really starts. That way there are "infinite" options, with open combat simply being one of them.
As an example of a setup for a skill challenge I might say, "okay, you see the cultists reorganizing coming towards you en masse. You are pretty sure that you can't take them all out in combat. If you try, this will probably be your end. To your left you see mine tunnels that lead to the outside. You could try to outrun them by foot, or you can use the mine carts to get as far as possible before they catch you. What would you like to do?"
At that point we are in the EC, but I've made no mention of skills allowed or disallowed. I've given them their goal (outrun the thugs out the tunnels) and I've framed the spatial situation (thugs coming, tunnel escape, carts, on foot, no combat, etc.). Usually at this time the players start asking questions and "planning" their actions.
Wizard PC: "Do I see a cart that has some lumber in it?" (no roll, or lousy roll)
DM: "
Yes, but it's not too close to the exit, you might have to push it a bit." (this is setup not success/fail for challenge)
Wizard PC: "One of you, the strong ones, come help with this cart."
Warrior PC: "I go and start pushing." (roll to push)
DM: Success - "The cart moves easily and you guys are in it you can fit 3 per cart." Fail - "The cart moves but it is very heavy and is moving slowly. You get in it but it might be slow going (complication)."
The entire thing is a give and take. And they can ask questions just like in a combat. The more questions the better, it means they are getting into it. When the players go into the EC I don't initially disallow any skills, or actions. Simply because I can't think of all possible situations. I'd rather the players think on how they can achieve their goal without any predetermined restrictions. During the metagame I might say to them that something would not work as they want, but only after they describe what they want to do. This way they get to think without artificial restrictions. I might eventually disallow a particular skill use, or action, but not without first hearing their "argument". The Negotiation SC on the DMG is a perfect example of why I don't do that. Intimidation in that challenge was disallowed from the beginning without "listening" to the context in which the PC is framing his skill use. And there might be instances that the PC framing is appropriate.
Also, if their character doesn't need to roll to succeed, then that's not really a challenge in the skill challenge, and thus won't contribute to the outcome either way. That doesn't mean that they can't still use the skill, mind you; the skill is considered a success (though not counted for the skill challenge), and it changes the context of what's going on accordingly. It just means that it doesn't take up their turn, and they still need to make a contribution, as normal.
If there is a ladder (and there likely is if they're asking, because I'm nice like that in 4e, what with my "yes, and" and stuff going on), I give them +2 for having a good idea, and make them roll (ladders can fall). That seems simple enough to me.
I don't think my players would skip asking. Also, I don't think asking is a problem for skill challenges. At least, not in my experience.
Let me explain why I have certain "auto-success" conditions. It has a lot to do with the playstyle I want my players to engage in.
Statistically, the more rolls a player needs to do to accomplish something, the less likely he is to succeed at the task. A good example is swashbuckling action. If a player says I want to swing from the chandelier, kick the ogre into the fire pit, and land next to him, this can be resolved in multiple ways. I can have the PC make an Acrobatics check to swing, an attack roll to hit, an Athletics check to push, and another Acrobatics check to land. The likeliness of success under those conditions is very low. However, and this is where 4e excels, I can also resolve it by one simple Acrobatics check that accomplishes the entire action. I express to the player that he thinks this is a hard maneuver, and that if he fails he'll be in front of the ogre and grant combat advantage, does he still want to try it? He says yes. So I go into calculation mode. The Ogre is a level X and a hard DC for a level X maneuver is YY. I tell the player, go ahead roll Acrobatics. If he hits the DC of YY he succeeds. He swings from the chandelier across the room. Firmly plants his feet on the ogre's chin making him stagger back into the fire pit, and with a last bit of panache he lands gracefully as the ogre yells in pain.
In a skill challenge, or in anything that uses a skill check there is also the "rolling for rolling's sake" situation. In the wizard's lab I've hidden his super secret key inside the jar on top of his desk, the one with the colored marbles. When I describe the wizard's lab and his desk I mention the glass jar with marbles. If a PC asks if he can see something unusual about the desk, he might have to make a Perception check to find the key. But if the player says, I go to the desk and open the glass jar with marbles and pour them out on the desk to look for the big ones. Should I have him make a Perception roll to notice the key that obviously fell out?
That is what I mean. There are some situations in which the PCs clearly think out of the box that we, as DMs, have created. Making them roll just so we can keep the appearance of "challenge" is counterproductive. Based on that same idea let's look at the example of the ladder. As the DM or adventure writer I've determined that they need to make an Athletics check to reach the glass pane. When the wizard character asks if they have a ladder he has "broken out" of the box. He came up with a situation that I did not think about. The wizard character is the one less likely to be able to make an Athletics check, so why am I going to make him roll? He has given me an out condition, and IMO should be rewarded. This becomes an auto-success to get to the glass pane. That is the type of play I want them to have, immersive on the gameworld level, not on the metagame level. He went past that piece of the "challenge" because of thoughtful play. So he gets
a success without rolling for it. This doesn't end the EC, but they have a success without rolling.
I hope that explains it better.
My players do tend to look over their good skill first, but this makes sense to me. In real life, people tend to attempt what they're good at first. However, they don't stop there. I've had multiple players roll Perception untrained, for example, because they're keeping an eye out for something specific (that might also set them up on their next roll, or help another player). If "I only have X, so that's all I'll ever consider" is a problem for many groups, it seems like my main group and my new 4e groups have both side-stepped this particular issue.
This is normal and should be expected. They will look at their best skill is not an aberration. It is good that your players are going beyond that. This is something to encourage.
Only if the check was only purely to climb up. In my skill challenge, it'd likely be "you climbed up, and now you can roll your Athletics to help rebuild stuff" or something. Or, "you found a ladder, and can climb up. Now what?" Depending on the answer, I'll make them roll something. I'm not going to give an auto success away for finding a ladder, but I'll still reward it.
I explained above how I handle it and why. If I had the climbing part as a piece of the challenge, and they came up with a feasible/effective way to not have to climb then they get an auto-success for that piece. Sure they might still have to do other things as part of the challenge but they've already accumulated a success.
Personally, I can't see how your method is any more or less organic than mine. Both reward obtaining the ladder, and both rely on what's actually happening in the fiction, and both follow a set narrative structure (X successes before 3 failures). You choose to end yours a little earlier or a little easier (auto success), but I don't get how that makes it any more organic. Perhaps I'm missing something, though, and my player feels like you do. Can you explain why you feel your method is more organic than how I'd handle it (+2 bonus, "you can climb, but what do you do now?", etc.)?
I hope that the explanation that I provided clears up what I meant. They don't get to have a "shorter" challenge, they simply accumulated a success without having to roll because of thoughtful play. The same way that what a character says to a duke might color the way the duke views that character with a bonus, a penalty, or even without having to roll. These are all pieces of the roleplaying.
I'm not running a skill challenge so that I can bypass the forced narrative structure of the skill challenge; as far as I'm concerned, that defeats the purpose. If looking in the drawer helps them, then it helps them within the fiction. However, I can always add more complications to the story within the context of the skill challenge. Sure, you found [whatever] in the drawer; what now? What do you do now?
I'm not trying to bypass the narrative either, I'm trying to keep it narrative. Your handling of the drawer example is not much different than what I'm trying to explain, but the secret that was found did not require a roll, so it's an auto-success for that particular piece. My explanation above covers this.
I will say that I don't use any "auto failure" skills. I just comment that certain skills may not apply right now, within the context of the current situation. I do encourage players to help one another brainstorm, and I throw out ideas, too, if I think they need the help (since many are new or somewhat new to the game).
I agree. Since I don't follow this advice when I run them, I don't think it's too much of an issue. I might say "there's nobody for you to Intimidate", but I'm generally pretty lenient. I've let the Monk do things like use Insight to predict the cave's path, since it was kinda maze-like, since it had been designed, even though there was nobody present to use it on. I'm not going to say "these skills always fail," and I basically wing every skill challenge, instead of deciding what can/can't be used ahead of time.
Yep, this all still lines up with what I mentioned. I handle it pretty much the same, but
The Negotiation challenge does pose a situation where an auto-failure is warranted during the delicate negotiation. It all depends on context. You are dealing with the duke after all, not some bum from the streets. When Theoden says, "When last I looked, Théoden, not Aragorn, was king of Rohan." This could be a situation where the particular skill use was considered an auto-failure on Aragorn's part.
The same way that getting into a combat when the party is trying to escape down the mine tunnels might be an auto-failure. But what if the dwarven paladin steps forward and says, "Okay lads, I have not much use for running. My time of reckoning has come. I feel the warmth of Moradin gaze and he awaits me in his halls. I will hold them as long as I can. Now get into those carts and flee!" Man what a glorious end. Let that character step forward and hold that line. That might even be an auto-success as he delays the enemy with his sacrifice. There are consequences to it, but man that is one awesome way to get immersed.
I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure why the adventure would necessarily end. Maybe it would; I don't know.
It might be possible to keep going but at this point it might be futile because of circumstances. That is mostly for the DM to decide.
Either way, I just ran a "exit the collapsing cave" type of skill challenge. If they had failed, they'd've been stuck inside when it caved in. It would've hurt, and they would now need to somehow get out. I don't see why the adventure would end. Regardless, I rarely use skill challenges that would explicitly kill PCs if they fail, and I've not done so in 4e. I'm following the "they should never end the adventure" advice.
Correct, and this is the "proper" way to design them, and run them. However there are some that don't follow that piece of advice in the DMG.
I don't think I'm far from this at all. I'm also not sure if you think this ties into what the player dislikes about skill challenges. They have yet to fail, and I've never ended the campaign for it. If you have questions about any of the skill challenges I've run (which are detailed somewhat in this thread), I can try to answer those questions.
I don't feel like my skill challenges are "dice rolling festivals." One particular skill challenge in my second session lasted most of the session, was interrupted multiple times, and involved a lot of talking between skill checks.
I never meant that your skill challenges were "dice rolling festivals." However this particular accusation comes up enough when dealing with skill challenges. So it is important to examine how we're running, and designing, them to make sure they don't turn out that way.
I'm definitely going to explicitly tell them when they're in a skill challenge, I think, as well as what's mechanically going on (successes, failures, etc.), just as I would in combat.
I'm also going to roll dice when I feel it's necessary (someone takes an action to progress towards the end of the skill challenge, help another do so, or help reverse a failure).
And, as far as the framework goes, I'm still not sure how skipping the framework provides any benefit; how is "automatic success" more organic (or better in another way) than "you can now climb up; what do you do now?" Both of our methods rely on the fiction to progress, your method is just resolved a little sooner or easier.
I just run them/design them differently. Yes, both our methods rely on the fiction in progress. I just prefer not to put the metagame for the skill challenge front and center. That is the reason I don't announce it, I ease them into it by engaging the fiction rather than the metagame. There is nothing wrong with your way of doing it. I just doesn't work well for my group as it immediately drops them out from the immersion in the game world. I hope my explanation above made sense of that.
And, since things rely on the fiction to progress (you can't say "I'm rolling Arcana", you say "I'm trying to magically control the harmful energies of the portal, and keep it under control"), I think I'm hitting your "presented from the point of view of the characters" note, aren't I? I'm honestly asking, not trying to shoot down all of your advice. (As you can see in this thread and the last one, I quite appreciate the advice.)
Never thought you were shooting down the advice, if anything you have been a wonderful listener to the advice. You measure it, and see if it works for you. That is the best type of "student". Engaging the fiction is exactly what I'm talking about, and you and your players seem to be doing it well. I just wanted to add to the particulars of skill challenges because they seem to be the most misunderstood piece of 4e, and for good reason.
I think the main thing that helped here is the "presentation is key" bit of advice. The rest I'm not worried about, and I don't feel like there's anything to fix based on your very thorough post. I'm not sure what I need to do to present things in a way that might annoy my player less, but I'm sure there's a way to do it. I'll be keeping an eye out on how I can go about that (probably looking closer at it than I might've if you hadn't mentioned it). Thanks for such a well thought-out reply. I appreciate the effort.
Not a problem, glad I could help.
Players. 
